Parkside Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Clear instructions for visitors about infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were displayed. Family and friends visiting had been suspended during the recent outbreak, as advised by local IPC professionals. Plans were in place to resume these visits within the next two weeks. Visiting arrangements were communicated to families via telephone calls, letters and by the home’s Facebook page. People were supported to keep in touch using telephone and Zoom calls, and FaceTime.

Staff had received training about personal protective equipment (PPE) and the registered manager ensured this was worn appropriately. Staff changed into their uniforms at work and remained on site during their shifts to minimise the spread of infection. Social-distancing guidance was followed whilst working and when on breaks. Frequent and regular handwashing was encouraged.

Clear cleaning schedules were in place. Increased cleaning of touch surfaces was taking place and regular checks were undertaken by the registered manager and provider.

Weekly testing was undertaken for people and staff. Staff were aware of symptoms and checks were in place. First vaccinations had taken place.

Parkside Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 21 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 36 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found.

Overall, people, relatives and staff gave us positive feedback about the caring nature of the service. There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. Staff spoken with made very positive comments about the staff team and registered manager.

The registered manager had been working with the local authority to improve the service. We have made a recommendation that the provider continues to seek and act on feedback from external professionals on the services provided, for the purposes of continually evaluating and improving the service.

There were enough staff to ensure people’s care and support needs were met on the day of the inspection. However, the providers dependency tool was not effective. We have made a recommendation that the provider review their dependency tool to ensure there are sufficient suitably qualified and competent staff to meet the needs of people using the service and keep them safe at all times. Following the inspection, the manager contacted us to say they would reassess every person’s needs against an effective dependency tool.

The provider completed appropriate pre-employment checks for new staff, to check they were suitable to work at the service. People had individual risk assessments in place so staff could identify and manage any risks appropriately. However, we found some people’s care records needed more information about specific health conditions. We spoke to the manager about this and following the inspection they contacted us to say they had updated all care plans to reflect people’s specific health conditions.

Safeguarding procedures were robust, and staff understood how to safeguard people. Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learned from events such as incidents, concerns and investigations. Staff told us they had training to enable them to perform their roles and were able to improve and develop new skills.

Staff felt supported and told us they received regular supervision. Medicines were managed safely at the service. We saw infection control audits were undertaken which showed any issues were identified and acted upon.

Respect for privacy and dignity was at the heart of the service’s culture and values. People and staff felt respected and listened to. The service promoted people’s wellbeing by taking account of their needs including activities within the service and community. People made positive comments about the quality of food provided and told us their preferences and dietary needs were accommodated.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Complaints were recorded and dealt with in line with organisational policy. There were planned and regular checks completed at the service to check the quality and safety of the service provided.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 31 January 2019).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Parkside Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Parkside Care Home is registered to provide residential accommodation for older people, including those with dementia, for up to 36 people. On day one of our inspection we were told 23 people were living at the home. The home is located in Wombwell near Barnsley.

There was a registered manager employed at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Care was planned and risks to people’s health and welfare were well managed although this was not always reflected in people’s care documentation. This had been identified by the providers quality assurance audit and we saw the deputy manager was in the process of reviewing and updating everyone’s care records.

People felt safe living at Parkside Care Home. We saw they were comfortable with the people they lived with and staff who supported them. People told us they could talk to members of staff or the registered manager if they had a problem.

Staff understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. They told us they were confident any concerns they raised would be taken seriously by the management team.

There were enough staff available to ensure people’s needs were met. The registered provider had robust recruitment procedures to make sure staff had the required skills and were of suitable character and background.

Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

We saw the premises were clean and well maintained. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to infection control and hygiene.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.

People were supported to access relevant health and social care professionals to ensure they were getting the care and support they needed to best meet their needs.

Staff were provided with relevant training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. We saw plans were in place for regular staff supervision and appraisal meetings to ensure staff were fully supported.

People and their relatives told us they enjoyed the food served at Parkside Care Home, which we saw considered their dietary needs and preferences.

We saw the service had appropriate signage and decoration of the premises was suitable to meet the needs of people living with dementia.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Positive and supportive relationships had been developed between people, their relatives and staff.

There was a range of activities available to people living at Parkside Care Home.

There was an up to date complaints policy and procedure in place. People’s comments and complaints were taken seriously, investigated and responded to.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided but they did not pick up on the shortfalls we found on inspection.

People, their relatives and staff told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

People, their relatives and staff were asked for their opinion of the quality of the service via regular meetings and annual surveys.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.